connection_leak

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects or safety. It only restates the high-level purpose without disclosing whether this is a read-only diagnostic, what data it accesses, whether it is potentially expensive, or what the return format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries system catalogs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief for a diagnostic tool name, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details. Still, as a structure, it is well-formed and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and only one optional parameter, the description needs to explain return values and behavioral context. It does neither. While the purpose is clear, an agent cannot fully assess when to invoke this tool or what response to expect, making it incomplete for a diagnostic tool with no other structured documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one optional parameter (database_name) with a pattern, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no help understanding how or why to pass database_name, or what effect it has on the analysis. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool detects connection leaks and analyzes acquisition patterns, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_connections (which likely just lists connections) or connection_pool (which manages pools). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete sense of the tool's function, though it could be more precise about what 'analyze patterns' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description implies it is for diagnosing connection leaks, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over tools like get_connections or transaction_monitor.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.